(April 24, 2013 at 5:24 am)Love Wrote: I am very skeptical that there will ever be a scientific consensus where all biologists will interpret the available evidence in exactly the same manner

I would hope not, if there -was -, if we just figured the earth had given up her secrets once and for all along the lines of a single interpretation of the evidence that would be abandoning the very method used to reach that conclusion.

(April 6, 2013 at 9:25 pm)Alter2Ego Wrote: ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

ORGANIC/BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION THEORY is chained to abiogenesis theory (the belief that life resulted from non-life spontaneously). Evolution and abiogenesis are two different theories, but because pro-evolutionists are notoriously atheists and dismiss an intelligent Designer/God from the equation, abiogenesis is what they are stuck with. When asked how life came from non-life by itself, they have no credible answer. So to avoid the problem of the long debunked theory of abiogenesis, some have jumped onto the creation bandwagon and claim they are theists who believe in evolution theory. In fact some claim they are Christians.

According to macroevolution theory, after the first living organism developed from nonliving matter in the ocean and formed into a "primordial soup," it resulted in a "common ancestor" from which came all the different forms of life that have ever existed on planet earth, including humans. All of this is believed to have been accomplished by itself (abiogenesis), without input from a supernatural God aka Jehovah who intervened and guided the outcome. Non-living matter simply decided one day to come to life--by itself--and bring forth intelligent life by unintelligent means. (Sources: (1) LIFE--How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? Pages 10-11; (2) Encyclopedia Britannica (1978), page 1018)


CREATION, on the other hand, is the conclusion that the appearing of living things, each uniquely different, can only be explained by the existence of Almighty God who designed and made the universe and all the basic kinds of life on the earth just as they are, with the ability for each "kind" of creature to produce variations of itself up to a set point.

Clearly, the theory of evolution and the Genesis creation account are polar opposites. Those who accept the evolution theory argue that creation is not scientific. They carefully avoid the fact that science is unable to present a credible alternative for how life came from non-life by itself (abiogenesis). Furthermore, pro-evolutionists—including those in academia/the scientific community—routinely dodge the issue that their philosophy is based entirely upon speculations for which there is no credible scientific evidence. They routinely use fabricated words such as "species transition", "speciation", "Punctuated Equilibrium", etc. to mislead the gullible. I might add that many pro-evolution scientists are determined to make names for themselves and will resort to outright dishonesty when necessary. I will present proof of this later on in this thread.


Regarding the credibility of the Genesis creation account vs. evolution theory, one source states: "But in fairness, it could also be asked: Is evolution itself truly scientific? On the other hand, is Genesis just another ancient creation myth, as many contend? Or is it in harmony with the discoveries of modern science?" (Source: LIFE--How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? Pages 10-11)


FACTS TO CONSIDER:
FACT #1: Just like Charles Darwin, the modern-day evolution scientific community asserts that every single animal that has ever existed came from one common ancestor aka came from a single organism (macroevolution).


FACT #2: There is no evidence in the fossils (bones of long-dead animals) proving that humans or animals evolved from completely different beings than what they presently are (macroevolution).


FACT #3: Atheists have no credible explanation for how the "common ancestor" came to life by itself (abiogenesis) so that evolution could then supposedly proceed. So their routine is to attempt to bypass that critical step by claiming evolution has nothing to do with how the "common ancestor" came to life. If they show up in this thread, you will see them doing what amounts to the usual song and dance along that line.

When you say the atheists and the pro evolutionists, I assume you're talking about the majority of biologists and scientists out there?

(April 24, 2013 at 8:03 am)Rhythm Wrote: I would hope not, if there -was -, if we just figured the earth had given up her secrets once and for all along the lines of a single interpretation of the evidence that would be abandoning the very method used to reach that conclusion.

I sense another round of circles coming on.

The way I have interpreted your reply is as follows: the scientific method can ultimately never lead to a robust theory that is: (1) agreed upon by all scientists, and (2) immune from being disproved/superseded. If scientific evidence and established theories are ultimately open to interpretation, how can the ultimate scientific truth of the matter ever be established? Is it a case of scientific democracy where the minority interpretations of evidence are ridiculed in favour of the majority perception?

I think that he means that as we continue to learn more about how the universe works, things that at one time seemed impossible to know may become established knowledge. Most of the disagreement comes from having some knowledge, but not enough to make a definitive finding, and so competing hypotheses develop.

Science is about generating explanations, not "ultimate truths" (and makes no claims to the contrary). If we're going to do any circles it will only be due to your insistence on jacking the wheel hard left. Minority hypothesis may be ridiculed, but ultimately this is irrelevant. There is no shortage of incidents in the history of science where ridiculed minority explanations have -by weight of the scientific method- and in the face of said ridicule, become the majority. If we ever stopped looking, we may as well throw in the towel. That's precisely how some other "pursuits of knowledge" ( - because I'm feeling generous this AM) stagnated and became irrelevant.

(April 24, 2013 at 8:52 am)Love Wrote:

(April 24, 2013 at 8:03 am)Rhythm Wrote: I would hope not, if there -was -, if we just figured the earth had given up her secrets once and for all along the lines of a single interpretation of the evidence that would be abandoning the very method used to reach that conclusion.

I sense another round of circles again.

The way I have interpreted your reply is as follows: the scientific method can ultimately never lead to a robust theory that is: (1) agreed upon by all scientists, and (2) immune from being disproved/superseded. If scientific evidence and established theories are ultimately open to interpretation, how can the ultimate scientific truth of the matter ever be established? Is it a case of scientific democracy where the minority interpretations of evidence are ridiculed in favour of the majority perception?

That's how you read that?

I don't wanna speak for Rhythm, he's plenty capable of professing a point more eloquently than I, but I read this as meaning that the whole point of the scientific method is investigation and testing; the point at which we assume that we have the answer totally down is the point at which we are no longer doing science, but also the point where we'll never find out whether we're wrong or not. We've seen this over and over with certain theists: believing you have the truth is the perfect excuse to not care about new information.

Now, about your statements on ridicule... go and look at science. Actual science, maybe not even about evolution or whatever. Go check out some peer reviewed work and the discussion around it in a discipline that has no theological commentary attached; there's no ridicule there. There's review, and testing, and inquiry, and debate... but not ridicule. The only reason intelligent design- I assume that's where you're going here given the thread you're in- is ridiculed is because it's fiction with pretensions of being scientific. Intelligent design proponents have given us nothing even remotely scientific, and they are backed by a population of credulous proponents that will continue to spout the same old, debunked claims over and over and over.

Hell, I'll go one further: Intelligent design has never made a claim at all. Everything intelligent design "claims" is really just a reaction, to disprove evolutionary theory, as though that somehow validates creation.

That's why there's ridicule.

(April 24, 2013 at 9:08 am)Rhythm Wrote: Science is about generating explanations, not "ultimate truths" (and makes no claims to the contrary).

Well, I think Richard Dawkins would vehemently disagree with you. He is adamant that science leads to truth. I would point you to some YouTube videos in which he makes this very clear. Unfortunately, however, this now seems to be impossible since I have been splapped by the moderators for including copyrighted material.

(April 24, 2013 at 9:10 am)Esquilax Wrote: I read this as meaning that the whole point of the scientific method is investigation and testing; the point at which we assume that we have the answer totally down is the point at which we are no longer doing science.

Firstly, I am not a proponent of the "Intelligent Design" movement. I am not a creationist and I accept the "Big Bang" theory as the leading cosmological explanation for the origin of the universe.

I do not deny that the scientific method is about postulation, formulating hypotheses, making predictions, performing experiments and disproving theories. That is not the point I am trying to make.

As I am sure you're aware, the whole scientific enterprise is ultimately governed by the scientific peer review process. An example: a student quantum physicist demonstrates that he or she has discovered physical evidence that completely eliminates the possibility of wave function collapse (which is a fundamental postulate in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics), and has the potential to completely invalidate the Copenhagen interpretation. At the very bottom line least, he or she needs to have peer reviewed scientific publications in order for the aforementioned discovery to be accepted as valid. Therefore, we'll assume that the student quantum physicist has submitted his or her paper for peer review. Even if the content presented in the paper(s) is 100% accurate and valid (in terms of satisfying the perquisites required by the scientific method), there is a distinct possibility that the academic who is reviewing the document will reject the idea that the evidence presented eliminates the possibility of wave function collapse. Does this mean that the evidence presented is invalid? Of course not. It is simply an example whereby the perceived credibility of the idea presented by the student is entirely dependent on the reviewer's subjective interpretation of the evidence, thereby invalidating the proposition that science is all about "investigation and testing".

Why would you have been slapped by the moderators for using copy write material, the whole music videos section is based on videos which are copy writed

(April 24, 2013 at 11:29 am)paulpablo Wrote: Why would you have been slapped by the moderators for using copy write material, the whole music videos section is based on videos which are copy writed

Actually, it seems that I misinterpreted the message; I have just discovered that it was actually about the link I provided for an e-book. Good, I am happy about that! I am a massive fan of YouTube and think including videos in discussions is useful.

(April 24, 2013 at 11:09 am)Love Wrote: Well, I think Richard Dawkins would vehemently disagree with you. He is adamant that science leads to truth.

Then perhaps you should take that up with him, why it came up in a conversation with me would be a mystery, no?

Quote:As I am sure you're aware, the whole scientific enterprise is ultimately governed by the scientific peer review process.

Incorrect, it's ultimately governed by demonstrable evidence and the reproduction thereof.

Quote:An example: a student quantum physicist demonstrates that he or she has discovered physical evidence that completely eliminates the possibility of wave function collapse (which is a fundamental postulate in the Copenhagen interpretation in quantum theory), and has the potential to completely invalidate the Copenhagen interpretation. At the very bottom line least, he or she needs to have peer reviewed scientific publications in order for the aforementioned discovery to be accepted as valid. So, the student quantum physicist has submitted his or her paper for peer review. Even if the content presented in the paper(s) is 100% accurate and valid (in terms of satisfying the perquisites required by the scientific method), there is a distinct possibility that the academic / professional reviewing the document will reject the idea that the evidence presented eliminates the possibility of wave function collapse.

And?

Quote: Does this mean that the evidence presented is invalid? Of course not. It is simply an example whereby the perceived credibility of the idea presented by the student is entirely dependent on the reviewer's subjective interpretation of the evidence, thereby invalidating the proposition that science is all about "investigation and testing".

b-mine

Wrong again -thereby demonstrating what we already knew about people and their willingness to cling to ideas already held. Thankfully there's a built in incentive to challenge the status quo. A career can be made in science without ever advancing a hypothesis of one's own - merely by picking apart the problems of another's. Some fields have such prodigious scientists in this regard that successfully floating a hypothesis past them has become a rite of passage. Meanwhile - we still have plenty of examples of "fringe" or "ridiculed" science becoming the accepted and "authoritative" explanations.

I shouldn't have to tell you any of this...you've made claims that would suggest to me that you should already know this...maybe I should look at floating a hypothesis in this regard?